30 replies to this topic

[blah]

I was curious to what people thought is the best view for an RTS; Side-view, Isometric, or topdown?

Side-view:
-Fairly easy to code
-Better way to display graphics
-Bit more unique
-Limited strategic implementations (mostly only moving left or right, unless its 100% aerial)

Isometric:
-Pathfinding will be a donkey to implement
-Best way to display graphics
-Allows good strategic positioning because its more 3d
-Spriting will be a bit of a chore

Topdown:
-Fairly easy to code
-Looks lame; everything looks like blobs
-Not unique at all
-Okay strategic implementations

thanks for feedback

[Camilo101]

I always thought topdown looked fine if you know how to draw the sprites right. I mean, there are a LOT of crappy topdown sprites, but if you know how to do it right it doesn't look so bad. I usually don't see sidescrolling RTS, but I guess that would be easiest.

[Explicit]

either isometric or topdown

theyre almost exactly the same, except top down is less graphically complicated and only requires rotation to represent facing direction.

and not all topdown RTSs look bad

[True Valhalla]

Side- View AKA 3/4 View (use the correct terminology =D): Very nice, if you want to put in the effort. It's sort of an 'in-between'.
Isometric- Unless you are using a 3D modelling program, you'd be better off shooting yourself (not necessarily the moderator) in the foot.
Top Down- The best if you want to go for straightforward, strategic gameplay, and not focus so much on graphics~possibly the best options if you suck at spriting.

It also depends on your theme. If you are doing tanks, etc., top view is probably the best option, while if you are doing a fantasy RTS, a side view or even iso would be prefered.

~TV

[Demonhawk]

either isometric or topdown

theyre almost exactly the same, except top down is less graphically complicated and only requires rotation to represent facing direction.

and not all topdown RTSs look bad

Isometric isn't that hard to implement, this is how I'd do it:
Program it like a topdown, except add a variable "height", and make it so that "height" is an exact multiple of however many pixels the object would be compared to normal. Make the sprites isometric, but get the approximate shape of what the object would look like in topdown, and use that as the mask. Then, draw the sprite of the object in [variable height] pixels above the location. As long as you never have 2 storeys of the same spot accessible (and this almost never happens, if it does, just make it so its 2 separate rooms), you should be fine.
For mouseclicking, make it check the mouseclicks of the sprite. Maybe just make a second object thats related to the first. I don't know really.

Point is, it isn't that hard to program, it's just harder

[Explicit]

Side- View AKA 3/4 View (use the correct terminology =D): Very nice, if you want to put in the effort. It's sort of an 'in-between'.

i think he means like actual "side" view, like caveman craig or endless war

Point is, it isn't that hard to program, it's just harder

that was sort of my point...

[blah]

and not all topdown RTSs look bad

Don't get me wrong, I spent my time on a top down game myself, but what I meant is it's much harder to make identifiable shapes from a top-down perspective (people, cars, and boats for example don't really look too much like people, cars and boats from a topdown as much as a side-view)

and for isometric, its less about drawing the graphics as it is implementing pathfinding, which I dont think many people in GMC has ever done because its fairly difficult

thanks for the feedback!

Edited by blah, 12 March 2009 - 04:01 PM.

[masterofhisowndomain]

If you are making the game, with GM, then I'd say Top-down. Otherwise, for every commercial quality product that has a big team it's going to always be isometric; how often do you see any other kind of RTS? I could give you a list as long as my arm of RTS games that use isometric, because it provides a lot of depth, graphically and tactically.

[MMORPGguy]

Unless you're doing 3D, isometric will look the best and topdown would be the easiest.

...

Why would anyone consider making an RTS in platform view? It seems really limiting.

[virx67]

isometric is the only way to go, just because it's more graphically pleasing to the eyes.

[Explicit]

honestly i cant think of another tactical difference between td and iso other than elevation

Edited by Explicit, 13 March 2009 - 01:48 AM.

[queviltai]

isometric looks so much better, and seems a lot more pro too. it isn't as hard as many people make it out to be; yoyogames.com has a good isometric tutorial that basically explains everything you need to know.

[syth184]

side view is rarely done so in truth it would be original. But there's a reason it would be original. For instance Jumper 4 would put a whole new spin on the series and platforming in general if the game was Top-Down. and while that is in theory possible, it's just not as good.

isometric and topdown are virtualy the same, depth can even be implemented depeding on how complex your sprites are. Or you could make it top down in 3/4ths view which makes it exactlyliek top-down only allows for raised platforms. I personaly think top down in the way to go, unless you want a huge project to deal with, then you might as well go all out and try isometric

[MMORPGguy]

side view is rarely done so in truth it would be original. But there's a reason it would be original. For instance Jumper 4 would put a whole new spin on the series and platforming in general if the game was Top-Down. and while that is in theory possible, it's just not as good.

isometric and topdown are virtualy the same, depth can even be implemented depeding on how complex your sprites are. Or you could make it top down in 3/4ths view which makes it exactlyliek top-down only allows for raised platforms. I personaly think top down in the way to go, unless you want a huge project to deal with, then you might as well go all out and try isometric

isn't 3/4 view a type of iso?

[Explicit]

isn't 3/4 view a type of iso?

other way around

[masterofhisowndomain]

isn't 3/4 view a type of iso?

other way around

You're both wrong. Isometric views and 3/4 views are very different and not just a type of one another.

[syth184]

3/4ths view looks isometric but everything works as though it were top down.

For instance pokemon and the Portable zelda games are 3/4ths view, but if all of the sprites were changed to a top down view, the engine would not require editing. As opposed to a game like starcraft for example, where the engine would have to change if all of the sprites became top down. But what i was saying was that, pokemon and zelda both have cliffs and ledges but are run on a topdown engine. thus eliminating the need for isometric RTS's with the exception of really strange and complicated things, liek if you wanted to make a 3D rts where units could walk along walls and ceilings.... which would be really awesome actually... hmm..

[Explicit]

isn't 3/4 view a type of iso?

other way around

You're both wrong. Isometric views and 3/4 views are very different and not just a type of one another.

three fourths view is THREE FOURTHS towards topdown view from platform view, like an 'inbetween', you can say the same about isometric: because its not completely seen from the top, but not completely seen from the side, it just adds another angle by rotating the viewing plane by 45 degrees, they are not completely different,

take a square, rotate it 45 degrees, make it 3/4 fourths, you have an isometric square

@syth, exactly right? thats why i prefer topdown, its just easier, and if youre the right artist, it can look much better than most isos

[blah]

Topdown it is :-)

[True Valhalla]

Good choice.